Grunty <gruntingdwarf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Is it then surprising that blacks show on average a more flexible
>physical constitution than "lights"? No, because blacks had to
>continue relying on their physical robustness and elasticity to escape
>the predators, whereas lights got their members somewhat atrophied in
>exchange for their more sophisticated tools.
>
>Is it surprising that blacks show much more primitive societies? No,
>because they descend from those who stayed in their Ancient Homeland,
>so never being compelled to change their habits and evolve.
The problems with this silly racist analysis are numerous
1) There were plenty of predators outside of Africa including the
more-intelligent-than the-typical-animal Neanderthals.
2) The homeland wasn't hardly stagnant.
3) Africans show greater genetic diversity than non-Africans, so an
analysis that suggests that they changed less than those who left
Africa or that "the homeland" in some way constricts evolutionary
change, is contradicted by reality,
4) there is no reason to suspect that tools were of greater advantage
outside of Africa than inside
5) until so recently that evolution isn't easily implicated, those
outside of Africa had no significant superiority in tools or
civilization to those in Africa. Jared Diamond's explanation works a
lot better than any racial one.
>(On top of
>this natural fact, a historical fact - the oppresion lights subjected
>blacks to in recent centuries taking advantage of their superior
>development, just pronounced the differences.)
You assume your conclusion of "superior development".
There are plenty of examples in history of conquerors and oppressors
being less intelligent and advanced than those that they oppressed.
lojbab
|
